JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

And also: It isn't ambiguity if there is one person failing to understand. It is that person failing to understand. Everybody else seems to comprehend the autopsy conclusions just fine.

 

[vtbub]

For I Ratant:

What was your take on the traffic light theory?

 

[Walter Ego]

For I Ratant:

What was your take on the traffic light theory?

What theory would that be and how does it relate to the JFK assassination?

(Actually, this thread has ended or, rather, should be ended because Robert has refused to go mano-a-mano with the seven year-old. He's over making new friends and gaining new admirers in USA Politics in this thread.)

 

[I Ratant]

For I Ratant:

What was your take on the traffic light theory?

.
It is possible.
The first shot occurred with a serious downward trajectory. If it didn't hit the light, it hit the pavement.
I wonder if it may have been deflected more downwards when hitting the light.
It couldn't make a major change in trajectory and go over the limo to lightly tap Tague, or damage the curb from which a particle hit Tague.
I fired a .357 Magnum and a .22 Long Rifle at some curbing to see what each could do damage wise.
The .357 gouged the asphalt curb, but just smeared the concrete curb.
Any spent full bullet from the Carcano would not have done the damage alleged.
The particle that hit Tague was probably no larger than the .22 LR bullet, if that.
There would have been jacket cladding found in the curb specimen tested by the FBI. As there wasn't, the likelihood of a Carcano bullet hitting that curb became even less likely.
What most likely did that curb damage was hit from a car wheel with the wheel weight on the rim gouging the curb. Many curbs get hit like that.
And the FBI understood this, when they also concluded a bullet did not hit that curb.
The plywood witness plate I used does show all the bullets splattered widely, but these splatters tend to go at a low angle from the impact point.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robert has refused to go mano-a-mano with the seven year-old.

A pity. They would have been so evenly matched.

 

[A W Smith]

traffic light theory

The theory that the traffic light obscured the first shot, There appeared to be a white dot in a shield surrounding the original signal in a video taken days after the assassination from the shooters window by investigators. Some think it was a bullet hole but The original signal has long since been replaced and scrapped. If true his gives Oswald in theory 11 seconds to get 3 shots off not 8.4 seconds. I would think hitting that shield would have made quite a racket above the heads of the motorcade below it which would definitely be noted. and from that angle probably would have been deflected leaving a scrape and not a dot.

 

[Walter Ego]

The theory that the traffic light obscured the first shot, There appeared to be a white dot in a shield surrounding the original signal in a video taken days after the assassination from the shooters window by investigators. Some think it was a bullet hole but The original signal has long since been replaced and scrapped. If true his gives Oswald in theory 11 seconds to get 3 shots off not 8.4 seconds. I would think hitting that shield would have made quite a racket above the heads of the motorcade below it which would definitely be noted. and from that angle probably would have been deflected leaving a scrape and not a dot.

I assume this is related to Max Holland's recent National Geographic show which I haven't seen. Holland has been flogging this one for years. It was debunked by Dale Meyers several years ago here. Nor, aside from trivia and Holland's desire to get a piece of the JFK assassination theory action, am I sure how it relates to any conspiracy to kill JFK or why it's of any importance. 8.4 seconds to get off three shots was well within Oswald's capability.

 

[vtbub]

What theory would that be and how does it relate to the JFK assassination?

(Actually, this thread has ended or, rather, should be ended because Robert has refused to go mano-a-mano with the seven year-old. He's over making new friends and gaining new admirers in USA Politics in this thread.)

I was being intentionally vague in the question Walter as not to get a line of gobbly-gook from Mr. Prey.

As A.W. Smith pointed out, there was a theory that was new to me presented in the National Geographic documentary on the lost bullet that aired before the holiday.

The premise is, for those who don't know, is that the first shot came much earlier than previously thought. The documentary, as was talked about a few pages and much hand waving ago, shows restored versions of many of the films shot that day in the plaza. I'm forgetting the name of the writer/investigator now that was the lead, but his theory is that the first shot hit a traffic light mast or the light it self as the limo made the turn on to Elm right in front of the building, giving Oswald a 90-100 foot shot. It missed, but instead of hitting the oak tree as previously believed, it hit the mast and deflected and may have been the bullet that hit James Teague.

Teague, the 13-year-old girl that shot some movie footage, and an African-American who was near Howard Brennan, Amos Eunis?, were interviewed and were there watching the latest reconstruction of the shooting. Based on their recollections, they established the first shot as described and based on the Dorman film, which she claimed she stopped after the first shot, the traffic light and mast came into view. The same mast is still there, but showed no gouge consistent with a gunshot. Based on Eunis and Towner, the 13-year-old and her film, they discovered the car was not as centered as they thought before on the turn and based on the Secret Service filmed recreation done that same week, the light itself would have blocked Oswald's sight of Kennedy for that shot.

The two newish things I got from watching it were that Zapruder, if this is indeed right, did not capture the entire shooting sequence, and that the Hughes film, restored, does show movement in the 6th floor window consistent with someone being in it. Hughes stopped shooting before any shots were fired.


In regards to the noise, wouldn't the sound of the fired shot and riccochet be almost simultaneous? People always refer to the first shot sounding like a fire cracker. Maybe that's why?

 

[Walter Ego]

I was being intentionally vague in the question Walter as not to get a line of gobbly-gook from Mr. Prey.

As A.W. Smith pointed out, there was a theory that was new to me presented in the National Geographic documentary on the lost bullet that aired before the holiday.

The premise is, for those who don't know, is that the first shot came much earlier than previously thought. The documentary, as was talked about a few pages and much hand waving ago, shows restored versions of many of the films shot that day in the plaza. I'm forgetting the name of the writer/investigator now that was the lead, but his theory is that the first shot hit a traffic light mast or the light it self as the limo made the turn on to Elm right in front of the building, giving Oswald a 90-100 foot shot. It missed, but instead of hitting the oak tree as previously believed, it hit the mast and deflected and may have been the bullet that hit James Teague.

Teague, the 13-year-old girl that shot some movie footage, and an African-American who was near Howard Brennan, Amos Eunis?, were interviewed and were there watching the latest reconstruction of the shooting. Based on their recollections, they established the first shot as described and based on the Dorman film, which she claimed she stopped after the first shot, the traffic light and mast came into view. The same mast is still there, but showed no gouge consistent with a gunshot. Based on Eunis and Towner, the 13-year-old and her film, they discovered the car was not as centered as they thought before on the turn and based on the Secret Service filmed recreation done that same week, the light itself would have blocked Oswald's sight of Kennedy for that shot.

The two newish things I got from watching it were that Zapruder, if this is indeed right, did not capture the entire shooting sequence, and that the Hughes film, restored, does show movement in the 6th floor window consistent with someone being in it. Hughes stopped shooting before any shots were fired.


In regards to the noise, wouldn't the sound of the fired shot and riccochet be almost simultaneous? People always refer to the first shot sounding like a fire cracker. Maybe that's why?

Interesting, I suppose, but how does any of this relate to a conspiracy to kill JFK which, you may remember, is the topic of this thread? This would more in the nature of assassination history (assassination minutia in my opinion) rather than debunking of any ostensible assassination conspiracy.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Interesting, I suppose, but how does any of this relate to a conspiracy to kill JFK which, you may remember, is the topic of this thread? This would more in the nature of assassination history (assassination minutia in my opinion) rather than debunking of any ostensible assassination conspiracy.

It would mean the CTers have more troublesome evidence to counter.

I note RP couldnt give me a citation. Is his drawing from the autopsy record or not?

 

[vtbub]

It would mean the CTers have more troublesome evidence to counter.

Bingo. The documentary was a huge blow for those that think that there was more than one shooter. The cleaned up films and the laser test done for the Single Bullet shot was very good.

 

[EventHorizon]

What theory would that be and how does it relate to the JFK assassination?

(Actually, this thread has ended or, rather, should be ended because Robert has refused to go mano-a-mano with the seven year-old. He's over making new friends and gaining new admirers in USA Politics in this thread.)

Oh my. Why am I not surprised that he is just as dishonest over there as he is here?

 

[Walter Ego]

Oh my. Why am I not surprised that he is just as dishonest over there as he is here?

His arrogance hasn't abated any either.

Sorry to hear that on a board consisting of "critical thinkers" that some facts are not allowed. But when the student is ready, the teacher appears.

He seems to think he's on a mission from God to set us on the straight and narrow (very narrow) path.

 

[RoboTimbo]

His arrogance hasn't abated any either.



He seems to think he's on a mission from God to set us on the straight and narrow (very narrow) path.

Is there no subject he can't be wrong about?

 

[Walter Ego]

Is there no subject he can't be wrong about?

Probably not.

My assumptions are correct and being common knowledge, are immune from attack.

And his sources are impeccable, too.

Yeah, well Facebook is probably a little more reliable than the mainstream news media.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The sad truth is that if he wasn't hung up on trying to make everything fit one piece of evidence, in this case the Parkland statements, he might have stood a chance. Rather than admitting the possibility that any number of witnesses (10, 20, 40, the entire hospital) are wrong (especially when one source claims he was lying "under pressure from the FBI") and arguing against material evidence even when his stories don't fit together in any way (yeah, the entry wound made a massive explosion of ejecta, but the evidence supporting wounds consistant with a massive explosion of ejecta are fake, there must have been an exit wound invisible to cameras, eye witnesses are accurate if they agree with him, liars if not, and unnamed FBI agents faked the rifle, lied about how the palm print was found, etc, despite no strands making sense when you try to get them to fit a single narrative) he could have built something that might have made sense.

The only material evidence I am aware of that tried to suggest more than one shooter in the TSBD, or a shooter who was not LHO, is the unknown print taken from a cardboard box. Now this has implications: If it was part of the conspiracy, it means that the LHO palm print was genuine, because if you were an FBI or Dallas PD forensics guy being dishonest about the evidence to frame LHO you would discard, not include, evidence to implicate MacWallace or whomever else. It makes no sense. On the other hand, if there was a second shooter, why did witnesses only see one? Why would LHO seemingly willingly leave his prints and have photos taken of himself with the rifle?

Lets not be drawn by arguments about the photos being faked. They aren't. They can be reproduced and the only arguments against them are ignorant of how shadows work, or how photos can be faked.

There are arguments for a conspiracy that attempt to supply good evidence, and though none have overcome the null hypothesis, they at least make sense given the material evidence and don't rely on games of he-said-she-said. To me it makes no sense arguing for a narrative that is clearly unrelated to reality rather than at least considering more plausible narratives.

Though it confuses me why anybody would suggest the palm print, rifle, autopsy and more are based on some kind of cover up then not name the names of those they think are covering things up, and instead expect others to guess at the names.

 

[Robert Prey]

The sad truth is that if he wasn't hung up on trying to make everything fit one piece of evidence, in this case the Parkland statements, he might have stood a chance. Rather than admitting the possibility that any number of witnesses (10, 20, 40, the entire hospital) are wrong (especially when one source claims he was lying "under pressure from the FBI") and arguing against material evidence even when his stories don't fit together in any way (yeah, the entry wound made a massive explosion of ejecta, but the evidence supporting wounds consistant with a massive explosion of ejecta are fake, there must have been an exit wound invisible to cameras, eye witnesses are accurate if they agree with him, liars if not, and unnamed FBI agents faked the rifle, lied about how the palm print was found, etc, despite no strands making sense when you try to get them to fit a single narrative) he could have built something that might have made sense.

The only material evidence I am aware of that tried to suggest more than one shooter in the TSBD, or a shooter who was not LHO, is the unknown print taken from a cardboard box. Now this has implications: If it was part of the conspiracy, it means that the LHO palm print was genuine, because if you were an FBI or Dallas PD forensics guy being dishonest about the evidence to frame LHO you would discard, not include, evidence to implicate MacWallace or whomever else. It makes no sense. On the other hand, if there was a second shooter, why did witnesses only see one? Why would LHO seemingly willingly leave his prints and have photos taken of himself with the rifle?

Lets not be drawn by arguments about the photos being faked. They aren't. They can be reproduced and the only arguments against them are ignorant of how shadows work, or how photos can be faked.

There are arguments for a conspiracy that attempt to supply good evidence, and though none have overcome the null hypothesis, they at least make sense given the material evidence and don't rely on games of he-said-she-said. To me it makes no sense arguing for a narrative that is clearly unrelated to reality rather than at least considering more plausible narratives.

Though it confuses me why anybody would suggest the palm print, rifle, autopsy and more are based on some kind of cover up then not name the names of those they think are covering things up, and instead expect others to guess at the names.

Regurgitated Baloney. All of it.

 

[TheRedWorm]

You really don't have a coherent argument, do you?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Regurgitated Baloney. All of it.

No argument then? Trying to spare your feet more injury?

 

[kookbreaker]

Regurgitated Baloney. All of it.

Way to make a counter-argument, genius.